HYDERABAD: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has directed the Union ministry of home affairs to examine the cases of Shaik Shereen Begum and a couple of other police officers and invoke special powers conferring IPS status on them though they did not complete the mandatory eight years of service in the rank of a deputy superintendent of police.
A bench headed by tribunal chairman Justice L Narasimha Reddy pronounced this order while hearing the pleas by Shereen and others. The bench said Rule 3 of the All-India Services Rules, 1960, accords special powers to the Centre to act in exceptional cases without having to go by the rulebook.
The bench directed the applicants to make representations to the Centre under this rule. It also directed the Centre to examine their applications in the backdrop of the facts of the case and also the rule position within two months.
Erratic functioning of govt cause of injustice: Petitioners
The officers had applied for DSP grade II posts when the AP Public Service Commission (APPSC) issued a notification in 1998 calling for applications to fill up 19 DSP posts. The petitioners were selected and their names were shown in the 19 selected candidates’ list.
APPSC, later, took a Uturn and filled only 10 posts in 2001. Later, the state government and the APPSC accommodated them in various posts in health and other departments.
It was then the petitioners challenged the actions of the government and APPSC and launched a legal battle. All the courts — from CAT to Supreme Court — unequivocally ruled in favour of the petitioners. After 10 years, the state finally took the nine candidates as DSPs in 2011and also gave them the notional seniority and promotions.
But, blunders surfaced again in May 2018 when the state decided to deny IPS status for those “selected in 2001 but appointed in 2011” batch on the grounds that the Centre’s rule stipulated that those who are aspiring for conferred IPS status must put in eight years of service as DSP.
Petitioner’s counsel K Sudhakar Reddy told the tribunal that it was the erratic functioning of the state government in 2001 and in 2018 that caused injustice to the petitioners. “Both the state and APPSC deserve to be prosecuted. Their whimsical functioning has caused injustice to the petitioners. But, it cannot be cited as a reason for doing further injustice. Punish the perpetrators of this game,” the counsel argued.
“The government’s strange ways were the reason for the faux pas and the candidates need not be penalised,” he further said. The bench found force in this argument and cited Rule 3 to relax rules.
A bench headed by tribunal chairman Justice L Narasimha Reddy pronounced this order while hearing the pleas by Shereen and others. The bench said Rule 3 of the All-India Services Rules, 1960, accords special powers to the Centre to act in exceptional cases without having to go by the rulebook.
The bench directed the applicants to make representations to the Centre under this rule. It also directed the Centre to examine their applications in the backdrop of the facts of the case and also the rule position within two months.
Erratic functioning of govt cause of injustice: Petitioners
The officers had applied for DSP grade II posts when the AP Public Service Commission (APPSC) issued a notification in 1998 calling for applications to fill up 19 DSP posts. The petitioners were selected and their names were shown in the 19 selected candidates’ list.
APPSC, later, took a Uturn and filled only 10 posts in 2001. Later, the state government and the APPSC accommodated them in various posts in health and other departments.
It was then the petitioners challenged the actions of the government and APPSC and launched a legal battle. All the courts — from CAT to Supreme Court — unequivocally ruled in favour of the petitioners. After 10 years, the state finally took the nine candidates as DSPs in 2011and also gave them the notional seniority and promotions.
But, blunders surfaced again in May 2018 when the state decided to deny IPS status for those “selected in 2001 but appointed in 2011” batch on the grounds that the Centre’s rule stipulated that those who are aspiring for conferred IPS status must put in eight years of service as DSP.
Petitioner’s counsel K Sudhakar Reddy told the tribunal that it was the erratic functioning of the state government in 2001 and in 2018 that caused injustice to the petitioners. “Both the state and APPSC deserve to be prosecuted. Their whimsical functioning has caused injustice to the petitioners. But, it cannot be cited as a reason for doing further injustice. Punish the perpetrators of this game,” the counsel argued.
“The government’s strange ways were the reason for the faux pas and the candidates need not be penalised,” he further said. The bench found force in this argument and cited Rule 3 to relax rules.
Coronavirus outbreak
Trending Topics
LATEST VIDEOS
More from TOI
Navbharat Times
Featured Today in Travel
Get the app